The Missouri Supreme Court heard a last-minute appeal Tuesday morning that will decide the fate of a legislative amendment that, if approved by voters, would overturn the state’s abortion ban.

The court heard the case at 8:30 a.m. Since the deadline for voting in November is Tuesday at 5 p.m., a decision is expected the same day.

Judge Christopher Limbaugh of Cole County decided late Friday that the text of Amendment 3 does not meet the State’s requirements because it does not identify the sections of Missouri law that would be affected by the amendment.

Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, the group behind the change in the law, appealed the decision on Saturday to the Western District of the Missouri Court of Appeals, which then referred the case to the state Supreme Court.

Attorney Chuck Hatfield, who represents the group behind the change in the law, argued in court Tuesday morning that state law does not require the disclosures that the district court implied in its ruling.

“It requires disclosure of what is being repealed, and it does not say that proponents have to disclose changes to laws or implied repeal,” Hatfield said. “And that makes sense because constitutional amendments never repeal laws here, first of all.”

Mary Catherine Martin, an attorney for the group fighting Amendment 3, argues that the amendment does not meet the constitutional and legal requirements for a vote because it does not specify which sections of the law it seeks to change.

“These requirements protect voters. They do not undermine the ballot initiative process. They are enshrined in the Constitution and information laws to protect all voters in Missouri,” Martin said.

Hatfield argued that the lawsuit contained “few legal arguments and many political arguments.”

“You can have that debate and discussion, but the time and place to talk about whether Amendment 3 is a good idea is in November and in the campaign that runs through November,” Hatfield said. “That’s not here, in this courtroom or in the courtroom down the street in Cole County District Court.”

Hatfield said Supreme Court justices should not allow themselves to be used to deprive them of the right to debate.

Tori Schafer, spokeswoman for Missourians for Constitutional Freedom, said Limbaugh’s ruling was in direct contradiction to the Supreme Court’s handling of similar cases.

“The court has consistently held that technical requirements do not prevent a bill from being removed from the ballot. This court should reject the request to remove this amendment from the ballot,” Schafer said.

Supreme Court Justice W. Brent Powell said previous cases similar to this one had involved the question of whether there was a direct conflict between two constitutional provisions or two laws.

“I have not found any cases that have analyzed whether and when there was a constitutional provision that might conflict with the law. Do you have an answer to that?” Powell asked.

Martin said the fact that this issue has not yet been addressed “does not mean that this is not the clear and unambiguous meaning of the law.”

After the hearing, Martin said it would be best if the court made a decision before the 5 p.m. deadline.

“It’s not my job to tell the Supreme Court what to do, but I believe we’ll only get full relief if they make a decision by this afternoon,” Martin said.

Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft announced in August that the amendment that would allow abortions until the fetus is viable received the required number of signatures to appear on the ballot.

On Monday, he revoked the ballot certification, citing the judge’s decision on Friday.

Regarding this decision, attorney Josh Divine said in court that the court should dismiss the appeal because it was moot due to the revocation of Ashcroft’s license.

“I want to make it clear that the Secretary’s decision yesterday is not before this court because the intervenors have not amended their briefs or done anything of the sort to challenge the Secretary’s actions,” Divine said.

Divine said that although the court had ordered a stay of judgment, a stay was not an injunction.

“At no time did the minister have an injunction preventing him from revoking the approval of this nomination,” Divine said.

However, due to Ashcroft’s actions, the defendants filed a motion to hold Ashcroft in contempt of court because he declared the popular initiative void while the proceedings were stayed.

“This court currently has the authority over this process. The public has been told, as it should have been, that you are going to decide whether or not this measure goes to a vote, and that’s right, you are going to decide that,” Hatfield said. “The Secretary of State went to them and told them, ‘No, you don’t have the authority to decide whether it goes to a vote.’ He just took it away. That is a blatant disregard for your authority. That is a blatant disregard for the rule of law.”

According to the Foreign Ministry, the total number of valid signatures in the constituencies that met the minimum requirement was more than 241,000. The required number was around 171,000.

Several lawsuits were filed against the petition, ultimately reducing the time the organization had to collect signatures.

One of the lawsuits involved the budget memorandum for the by-law provision. There was a disagreement between the Comptroller and the Secretary of State’s office over who had the authority to finalize the memo detailing the provision’s costs.

Both a Cole County district judge and the Missouri Supreme Court ruled against Attorney General Andrew Bailey, who argued that his office had greater authority over the letter.

Another legal dispute concerned the ballot originally written by Ashcroft.

The Missouri Western Court of Appeals ruled that Ashcroft’s summaries contained politically partisan language. The court affirmed, with few changes, a revised summary written by Cole County Circuit Court Judge Jon Beetem.

Removing this amendment would significantly change the electoral environment in November of this year.

Accordingly a SLU/YouGov survey A poll of 900 likely voters in Missouri conducted August 8-16 found that 52% of respondents would vote for Amendment 3.

Democrats in Missouri expect a surge in support if the abortion amendment comes to a vote.

Official voting language:

Would you like to amend the Missouri Constitution as follows:

• introduce a right to make decisions about reproductive health care, including abortion and contraception, and consider any state interference with this right to be invalid;
• Repeal of the abortion ban in Missouri;
• enable regulation of reproductive health care to improve or maintain the health of the patient;
• to require the Government not to discriminate in government programs, funding and other activities against persons who provide or receive reproductive health care; and
• Do you allow abortions to be restricted or prohibited after the viability of the fetus unless doing so protects the life or health of the woman?

State officials say there will be no costs or savings, but the impact is unknown. Local officials estimate the cost in lost tax revenues to be at least $51,000 per year. Opponents say there is a potentially significant loss of state revenue.

This is a developing story that will be updated